pep.Does updating the registrar entries of a XEP mandate a version block
flowpep., do you update the registrar entries without a textual change of the XEP?
pep.Well depending on the XEP, it might just make sense to only update the registrar..
pep.I did update the sole exapmle here though
pep.So probably at least requires a patch release
flowpep., which change are we discussing?
flowohh that's a good one
flowI first ask myself if data form registry entries also come with <required/>
flowso right now, one could argue all the existing fields in the registry submission of xep157 are optional
flowand the new field you add is also optional
flowso it is a backwards compatible change
flowit would clearly require a version block if it was a backwards incompatible change
flowbut nevertheless it basically adds a new thing (akin to attribute element4) on the protocol layer, so i'd say a version block would be required
floweven if it would not be required it would be nice
flowplus it would certainly be nice if you also extend the example
flowand even add a textual description for that field
flowbecause I ask myself if I could parse the text in that field as uri
flowi.e., if this field is required to contain only valid URIs
flowhmm the last one is probably unrelated to your concrete change
flowoh, there is no trace of <required/> in the xsf registry, so either it is not expected to be included in the registration submission, which I would find strange, or, we there was simply never a required field registered
pep.so.. version block? :p
pep.What do you mean "extend the example"? Don't I already do that?
flowpep., ahh sorry, for some reason I only saw the diff in the registry submission
pep.hmm, how do I even make sure it contains valid URIs.. That would be good to have yes
flowpep., well you could specify it in text, idally we would extend xep122 for that, but that can be done later on
flowxep122 has support for xs:anyURI
pep.So how would that work? Can I say that in the PR?
flowhehe, that's probalby newland. similar to <required/> I can't find registry entries with xep122 annotations. But that doesn not mean that it should not go in the registry, it probably just means that nobody bothered or did it
flowi personally think it belongs in the registry information, but not in the example, as the example shows a data form of type 'result'
flowand you have the xep122 annotations usually in data forms of type 'form'
flowand you have the xep122 annotations only make sense in data forms of type 'form'
flowand xep122 annotations only make sense in data forms of type 'form'